I had
received a preview chapter of Ajaya by Anand Neelakantan sometime last year. I
was so deeply impressed by the promise that just the preview chapter & the
book’s premise held, that I could not wait long enough for Ajaya’s release.
I had even
written a detailed blog post – right here -
(http://vidhithebookworm.blogspot.in/2013/10/a-sneak-preview-of-ajaya-roll-of-dice.html)
on Ajaya’s preview with a hope that the book will finally bring out the
“grey” element of Mahabharat, which is against the popular notion that people
have of the great Epic’s story.
But I was
sadly mistaken. In fact it became difficult for me to read Ajaya because of the
weak & one sided characterisation that almost all characters had in the
book.
Ajaya will
be a superb read & in fact quite an explosive read for those who have surface
level knowledge of the great epic…who have basically grown up knowing that
Pandavas are heroes of the epic & Kauravas are villains; who have
understood Mahabharat mostly through TV serial adaptations (& that also
what they largely saw in the 1980s…not today; B.R.Chopra’s Mahabharat was
superb, but most of us need to watch it again today to understand character
& situation nuances) or stories carried forward from the elders in the
family. They will suddenly find the story turning on its head & will love the
new “discovery” they have made.
However, for
those, who have studied the epic a bit more in detail, know that Mahabharat
never paints any character as wholly black or wholly white, to the extent that
even Vishnu’s avatar “Krishna” is painted grey in the epic – he steals, tricks,
plays politics, lies & uses deceit in various situations to achieve an
ultimate goal. This is Mahabharat’s core essence – please understand it was
never & is never a religious book. It is an epic – the biggest anthology in
the World that “studies human behaviour & psychology”. It studies how the
worst get out the best & the best get out the worst in them when faced with
life’s puzzling situations.
With the
very premise of Mahabharat being so grey & reflective, Ajaya for me fell
completely short of what I expected from Neelakanthan. With his superb writing
& storytelling style, I expected him to finally bring out the grey of the
epic in front of the people…who so far think Mahabharat to be a black &
white epic too. Sadly, that did not happen.
The whole
book seemed like a PR release from Kaurava & Co. camp. Yes, Duryodhana had
many good qualities, but he was also an egotistical & short tempered man.
Since his childhood he was made to believe that he will one day rule Hastinapur
and fulfil his father’s dreams. He was shown this big dream by Dhritharasthra,
who could not get the throne for himself & tried to realise the same
through his eldest son. He was an excessively pampered & loved child by his
father & was under his uncle Shakuni’s thumb. Having said
that, it was not like Pandavas tried any attempts at a truce with him too.
Apart from attempts by Yudhishthira, rest of the Pandavas treated Duryodhana
with equal disdain, especially Bhima & Arjun.
But in
Ajaya, he is shown as a man who was some lost, dreamy lover with big reformist
dreams (for which he does practically nothing but mope) & one who sees love
everywhere around him. It is then very shocking that how could Mr. Sensitivity
order a woman to be disrobed publicly, just because she laughed at him; or order
building a house of lac to get his cousins & aunt burnt alive. The
unnecessary painting of Duryodhana as a lover boy saint was too one-dimensional
& underwhelming. Duryodhana in Mahabharat is a strong character – he is
handsome, well built, athletic, a very protective brother to his siblings,
sharp in studies & one who constantly wishes to excel in the art of mace
fighting; he has a big heart & is very warm towards people he loves (his
wife & his friend Karna), irrespective of who they are; however his cons
were that while he had a warm heart for those he loved, he was irrationally
close hearted for those whom he did not like, he was ambitious, egoistic, and
could go to any lengths to achieve his goal- whether he agreed with those
methods or not. Does it make him sound more human? More like you & me &
people we often see around us? Good, because that is what this great Epic is
all about.
Mahabharat
spares no one & paints everyone as a grey character. The irony of the book
is that while almost all major characters in the book talk tall tales of upholding
“dharma”, honour, duty etc., they all fail to follow it, somewhere or the
other, thus leaving scope for lot of ripple effects– be it Bheeshma, Drona,
Dhritharasthra, Kunti, Pandavas, Kauravas, Gandhari or anyone.
Ajaya on the
other hand takes clear one-dimensional sides – one black & one white.
Therefore in order to paint one side as only white, the author here uses one or
two isolated stray incidents to twist around & justify his monochrome
characterisation. Neelakanthan did that in Asura too, but in Ajaya it was prevalent
from the very first chapter.
For example:
·
Duryodhana - Subhadra - Arjun angle: It is true that Arjun went on a
marriage spree post his marriage to Draupadi to firm up his base of allies.
This “kootneeti” or strategy was the guidance of Krishna to help Pandavas firm
up their base, so that at the time of Rajasuya Yagya, most kingdoms
automatically pledge their allegiance to the Pandava throne, without least/no
amount of bloodshed. Seeing this, Shakuni egged Duryodhana to impress Balrama
by appointing him as his master in mace-fight art, & subsequently butter
him up to ask for Subhadra’s hand – all a political move. Krishna pre-empted
that move & instead arranged Arjuna & Subhadra’s meeting, where
Subhadra fell in love with Arjuna & decided to elope with him. In Ajaya,
however, the whole episode is made into an unrequited love saga, which is not
even convincing, especially Subhadra & Duryodhan being in love before
Duryodhan’s graduation, when as a practice students in that era were isolated from
rest of the world & practised “brahmcharya” (lived a hermit’s life with
full focus on gaining education) as a cardinal rule. Subhadra is anyways
introduced in Mahabharat post Arjun’s marriage to Draupadi & when he goes
on a “penance journey” (which is actually a marriage spree).
·
Karna & Draupadi angle: By all means Karna had all
qualities that any woman would want in a husband. If Draupadi had prayed for a
husband with all 5 qualities – honour, valour, strength, beauty &
sensitivity – she did not have to marry 5 men; Karna had all these qualities.
However, she willingly chose Arjun, as his popularity, valour, looks and lineage
tempted her the most. She indeed did not wish to marry someone whose lineage
was of dubious origin & whose royal status was a gift that could have been
revoked. That was her weakness. She applied to Krishna for a solution, when
Karna approached the dais to shoot his aim, and Krishna seeing her
unwillingness gestured her to refuse. She did that & got what she wanted.
In the book, however, this is again painted as a puppy love story gone wrong;
when it was indeed a decision made by Draupadi on her own. Also, if I try to
look at this from another angle, then Karna, who is painted as jilted lover in
Ajaya, actually went ahead & called Draupdai a prostitute & aided in
her getting disrobed & humiliated, just because she refused to marry him?
So basically, the woman “asked for it”, as usual. Whatever happened to Karna
was highly unfair, but he was denied far greater things & humiliated much
more by men like Bheeshma, Drona & Parashuram…why didn’t he take any action
against them? Because, like all other men, he could also find a vulnerable
victim in a cornered woman only.
My point in stating this angle is not
to deride Karna’s glory & his beautiful persona, but to drive the point
that this is Mahabharat; the best in the worst & the
worst in the best under life’s situations.
·
Jarasandha & Shishupal: The events regarding these two
kings with Krishna were laughable for me. The whole Shishupal episode of how he was Krishna’s cousin & always
nurtured rivalry for him is ignored; the fact that Rukmini was forcibly put in
an arranged marriage set-up with Shishupal is again ignored; Rukmini applied to
Krishna through a letter (that is famed as the oldest ever love letter or
proposal in World’s history) expressing her desire to marry him, & Krishna
eloped with Rukmini to avoid unnecessary bloodshed & married her. This was
the cause of Shishupal’s bitterness towards Krishna.
Jarasandha, the king of Magadh, famed to have
the biggest Akhada (wrestling arena – which by the way is still to be seen in
Bihar) in the World, was Kansa’s father in law. Everybody is well aware of
Krishna & Kansa story. Post Kansa’s death, Jarasandha became sworn enemy of
the Yadav clan & raided Mathura 17 times, to be defeated & still spared
each time. Seeing the unrest the constant war was causing Mathura & its
people, Krishna took the decision to shift his city to a remote island Dwarka.
All his elders were against this decision, as they warned him that he will be
called “Ranchhordas” (one who is running away from battlefield) in history, a
title no “valiant” warrior aspires to earn – all of them fight for eternal
glory, remember? But Krishna did not want undue bloodshed of his people &
thus at the cost of earning whatever title was bestowed upon him, he shifted
his capital to Dwarka. The whole Jarasandha Vadh episode is painted in such a
one sided & funny light, as though Jarasandh was some holier than thou
monarch (whose Akhada held duels nightmares are made of & who had trapped
95 kings to make human sacrifice of). Challenging him to a duel was the best
way to finish the long feud without unnecessary bloodshed of many people & without
starting another War. Post Jarasandha’s death, his own son Sahadeva was given
accession to the throne. I might ask if Pandavas & Krishna were as black as
painted in Ajaya, why didn’t they keep the kingdom to themselves. The might of “Magadh”
as a kingdom is legendary & frankly to this date Bihar plays the most
prominent role in deciding the country’s political fate. Annexing such a kingdom
would have been the best decision of any Monarch, isn’t it?
Again my point of providing such a detailed storyline was to make you
understand that Mahabharat or Ramayan cannot be looked from a prism of black
& white only, & this is where Ajaya as a book failed for me.
Like Ram was painted in such a “blah” manner in Asura, & like his
character wasn’t even developed; Ajaya takes “Krishna” to another level. It is
laughable how Krishna is depicted as this popular superstar who likes having
his minions around. Many millennia has come & gone, & brought so many
foreign invasions, so many sects branched out of Sanatan dharma (Hinduism as
popularly known), so many religions & faith came & are living
harmoniously still, yet Krishna is one name whose charm & enigma over
people has not faded even a bit. By all means strip him off his godly demeanour
in your re-telling Neelakanthan, that is your creative liberty & your
outlook, but why such a week characterisation of someone who holds such enigma
on everyone’s hearts even today? At least his character could have been etched
with more layers if nothing else.
The book also holds subtle indications, where it is implying Bhagvad
Geeta to be a book that kills one’s conscience; To quote: “Arjuna left the room, confused about the whole concept of Dharma. Maybe
one day someone would explain things to him clearly, so he would not feel the “pinch
of his conscience” in doing what his mother suggested.”
Is the author suggesting that the biggest truth & philosophy of life,
Bhagvad Gita, that has been & is still the most revered upon doctrine on “Life
& Truth” by the most learned men from all walks of life, is nothing but a
conscience killer?? Even if the author is taking creative liberty, that was a
very underwhelming light to paint the text with.
While Neelakanthan’s writing style was superb as usual, I wish he can
provide more nuanced & layered versions of his stories, than give me highly
one sided views. Only good thing that I liked about this book was how casteism’s
vice was beautifully & effectively portrayed by Eklavya & Karna – one of
most wronged characters in History.
P.S: I was floored by the author’s father’s views (late Mr.
L. Neelakanthan) on Mahabharat (mentioned in the after notes). I would again
love to read the epic keeping senior Neelakanthan’s POV in mind. It might just
open another interpretation in my head J J Oh the joy of reading Mahabharat!! J J J
No comments:
Post a Comment